Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description still adds genuinely useful context beyond them: exactly what is destroyed (only the edge, not the objects) and that the operation is irreversible. It says nothing about permissions or auth requirements, so it is not fully rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core content is front-loaded and tight: removal, scope of deletion, irreversibility, inverse tool. The trailing '| EN: object, record, entry, property, link, search' keyword block adds little selection value for an agent and slightly dilutes an otherwise efficient definition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter destructive operation whose annotations already carry the safety profile, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is deleted, what survives, irreversibility, and the inverse operation. No output schema is needed for a deletion result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning about link_udid itself, and the schema's own label ('Link-udid') is essentially tautological, leaving the identifier format undocumented in both places.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Eine Verknuepfung zwischen zwei Objekten entfernen') and immediately delimits scope by clarifying that only the edge is removed, not the participating objects. That scope distinction cleanly separates it from the many sibling delete tools (onto_object_delete, onto_object_delete_property, onto_file_delete).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear context (removing an edge) and routes to the inverse operation onto_object_create_link when the goal is creation. It does not mention onto_object_update_link as the alternative for modifying rather than removing a link, so the when-not guidance is incomplete but the primary routing is explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.